State v. Rodriguez
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOWARD, Presiding Judge.
The state has brought this special action from the trial court’s refusal to grant a *70motion to vacate hearing and to quash subpoena, a motion which arose from the real party in interest’s challenge to a new program implemented by the Pima County Attorney’s Office excluding certain offenders from plea bargaining. We believe the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the hearing. Since the state has no equally plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal, we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
The applicable facts which led to the instant ruling are…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Oyler v. BolesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Murgia v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- State v. MartinArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. PettittWashington Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. MurphyArizona Supreme Court · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State of Arizona v. PowersCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
- State v. ToneyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019